hume-or - Tumblr blog

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

A Fundamental Theme in Dystopian Fiction is Conflict between the Individual and the State Social System. Is this true of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale?

Both “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (By Margaret Atwood and George Orwell respectively) are set in totalitarian states, which control pretty much every aspect of life. “The Handmaid’s Tale” (THMT) is a feminist novel, written by Atwood in 1985 at the height of Third Wave Feminism. The conflict between the narrator and the state is a major theme in this novel. “Nineteen Eighty-Four” was written at the end of the Second World War, in 1949, when the affects of the war were still being felt by those in Britain. This novel is very much a warning against the type of society many countries were leaning towards, one constantly under surveillance and not free. Throughout the novel we see that the narrator wishes to be free and it is this which provides the source of the conflict between the state and the individual. The conflict in both stories is brought about because of the total control the state attempts to impose over the individuals and their desire to be free. In this essay, I will discuss how the individuals in both novels bring about conflict between them and the state.

THMT By Margaret Atwood certainly shows that conflict between an individual and the state social system is a fundamental theme. Atwood has said, in an interview with The New York Times, that “Its a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people living in that regime.”. Much like 1984, Atwood said “its a response to ‘it can’t happen here’”, in that, the book asks people to question the possibility of such a regime occurring in their own country. Gilead is the name of the totalitarian state in which the protagonist lives. A main feature of the state is that it gives the Handmaids new names. The protagonist is given the name of “OfFred”. However, she creates conflict in her own mind by refusing to think of herself as “OfFred”. (Atwood never tells the reader OfFred’s real name because, by remaining anonymous, the narrator can represent all of the Handmaids in Gilead.) Though this conflict is not an open rebellion, it is certainly powerful. By saying to herself “My name isn't OfFred”, she is creating conflict between herself and the state social system. She is refusing to conform psychologically to the label put on her by the state,. This internal rebellion is in contrast to Winston’s very open rebellion in 1984. By not accepting her name, OfFred establishes herself as an individual, in a state that doesn't want women to be individuals. Throughout the novel it is clear she struggles with this inner conflict, refusing to go along with whatever the Aunts have said to her earlier. The Commander tells OfFred that “One and One and One and One don’t make four.” they make “Just one and one and one and one” OfFred later uses this statement, which was supposed to be a joke against women, in the philosophy she develops later in the book when she says to herself that “each one remains unique”. This is a perfect example of OfFred seeing herself as an individual, something that Gilead has tried to take away from her, thus there is certainly conflict here, between the individual and the state social system. OfFred is constantly reminding herself of her past life. Atwood shows this in her use of flashbacks. In these we are shown that OfFred had a partner “Luke” and that she wanted children “Luke and I used to walk together, sometimes along these streets…We would have children” . This is the source of her inner conflict. It is not often in dystopian fiction that the protagonist remembers a time before the regime. Here this results in OfFred being dissatisfied with her new life, as a Handmaid, where she is used for her “viable ovaries” in order to procreate. As an illustration that OfFred is unhappy with her life as a Handmaid, she is tempted to gossip with the “Marthas” Rita and Cora. These flashes of rebellious thought happen frequently throughout the novel. Another example is that she says “I hunger to commit the act of touch”. This was something that Gilidean society banned the Handmaids from doing; even the fact that OfFred is thinking about doing this, presents a conflict because she knows it is forbidden. OfFred has an affair with Nick, the chauffeur. It starts during chapter thirty nine, when she and Serena Joy go to him for help in getting OfFred pregnant. From then on she engages in sexual intercourse with him “time after time”. She comments “I did feel not munificent, but thankful, each time he would let me in.”. This is an open rebellion against the rules of Gilidean society and, this is another indication that conflict between OfFred and the state is a fundamental theme in the novel.

There is, however, some evidence to suggest that the conflict between OfFred and Gilidean society is relatively minimal. For example, OfFred does accept her place in society, because she describes it as something she signed up for. In chapter five, when OfFred and OfGlen are out shopping, they see a group of tourists from Japan. They stop and stare at the women in the tourist group, who “seem undressed”. OfFred remarks “It has taken so little time to change our minds, about things like this.” This shows that there is no conflict between OfFred and how the state social system wishes her to think, she is thoroughly indoctrinated. She even goes as far to confirm that “Yes we are very happy.” to one of the Japanese tourists. This could indicate that conflict is not a fundamental theme in this instance. In response to this evidence, Mary McCarthy in her 1986 review wrote “It is true that a leading trait of OfFred has always been an unwillingness to stick her neck out.”, confirming that conflict is nevertheless a fundamental theme in this novel.

All of this shows that there is little conflict between OfFred as an individual and the state social system, and what conflict there is, is quickly quelled. However, there is another character in THMT that is in conflict with the state, Moira. Atwood introduces us to Moira in the first chapter. Moira is very open about her conflict with the state social system, Moira dresses in a very masculine way and OfFred remarks “if Moira thought she could create Utopia by shutting herself up in a woman only enclave she was sadly mistaken. Men were just not going to go away.” showing that Moira has a completely conflicting view with The Republic of Gilead. Moira is a character that offers some hope to the reader that a woman who is in conflict with Gilead can survive, however she is subdued “in a women-only enclave” run by men, effectively squashing any conflict with the state social system. Through this we can see that conflict between the state and the individual is a major theme with the character of Moira.

In comparison with THMT, in 1984, conflict between the individual and the state social system is the fundamental theme “pursued to a horrifying extreme”. Original readers in 1949, the year the book was published, would have witnessed the horrors of Nazi Germany and the ongoing suffering of the people of the USSR. The novel asks readers to imagine if something that extreme could happen in their own country. As a result of this, the novel was received with mixed reactions. Predictably it was banned in the USSR, because it incited rebellion and questioning of the state. When it was first published, The New York Times said that it was “not impressive as a novel about particular human beings” but as a “prophecy and a warning” it was “superb.”. This is exactly what Orwell wanted his book to be. Today, The New York Times calls it a “political statement” saying that “it contains no prophetic declaration, only a simple warning to mankind”. We see the start of the descent into rebellion of Winston, the protagonist, in part I. He buys a diary, and, sitting in an alcove, begins to write in it. Though "…nothing was illegal” in keeping a diary, “since there were no longer any laws”, he knew that, if he were caught,“it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp”. Also “by sitting in the alcove… Winston was able to remain outside of the range of the telescreen.”; another subversive act. Later on in chapter I, Winston writes in his diary “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER”. This overt rejection of The Party shows that Winston has become disillusioned with the thought control to which he has been subjected. In an article for the New York Times, Dr. Edmond van den Bossche wrote “Winston is the last man in Europe, the only human being who wants to use his independent mind”. At the end of the first part, Winston begins to display this, and his appreciation of what The Party had taken away from him, when he writes in his diary “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.”, in direct conflict with The Party line. Here we also see that conflict between the individual and the state is a fundamental theme in the novel. The aim of most totalitarian states is to control every aspect of the citizen’s life. Sex is a fundamental part of being human. The Party keeps its citizens sexually repressed and Winston subverts this in meeting and kissing Julia. In Part II Winston starts to make contact with a wider rebellion; “he can not believe that he is alone, that he is the last man in London to resist Big Brother's conquest of the minds” Dr van den Bossche says. Though he met Julia in Part I, he calls her “only a rebel from the waist down”, meaning that he does not believe Julia is a true rebel. This proves, however, that he has started to think of himself as a rebel and the conflict has intensified into a fundamental theme.

Finally, at the end of the novel, Winton chooses to give in to the torture and professes his love for Big Brother, effectively ending the conflict. This does not make it any less of a fundamental theme, because in this instance, the end of conflict is just as stark as conflict itself. Orwell writes that Winston had “Won the victory over himself” showing that there was once conflict within Winston, the individual, with the state social system, much like the inner conflict experienced by OfFred in The Handmaid’s Tale. Winston states that “he loved big brother” confirming the fact that there is no longer any inner conflict between him and The Party. The totalitarian nature of Oceania means that real conflict between Winston and Big Brother cannot be tolerated. Oceania is in control of everything Winston does or says, confirming that the lack of conflict is a far more dangerous prospect than open rebellion, because if no one does anything about it, the terrifying state will continue to exist. Thus accentuating the fact that conflict between the individual and the state social system a fundamental theme in 1984.

In conclusion, it is apparent, in both novels, that even where there is little of it, conflict between the between both individuals and the two regimes is still a fundamental theme. Indeed, Lesley McDowell wrote “Atwood’s novel was an ingenious enterprise that showed, without hysteria the real dangers to women of closing their eyes to patriarchal oppression”. Therefore I conclude in favour of the above statement.

1. Third Wave Feminism - coined in 1992, four years after the book’s publication. Third Wave Feminism included broader goals such as subverting gender roles and queer theory.

2. The Party listens to the thoughts of it’s citizens in 1984. Gilead chooses how the Handmaids dress and act, also who the will procreate with.

3. Who have very little power in the social system.

4. labelling theory is very powerful affecting all ages, social classes, cultures, and communities.

5. Winston, unlike OfFred actually joins the rebellion.

6. The Aunts are responsible for ‘training’ women to be Handmaids.

7. Flashbacks show that OfFred remembers the past enough to tell it to the reader, thus we can assume that she holds it dearly to herself and cherishes the memories.

8. Women in Gilead are used this way because widespread heavy pollution rendered many infertile.

9. Rules such as the way the Handmaids dress, who they talk to etc are all controlled by the state.

10. Moira is a character the reader is introduced to in chapter one, she too is held by the Aunts in the old school gym.

11. For example, changing history and forcing the citizens to believe whatever has been written.

#q slur tw #the handmaid's tale #margaret atwood #1984 #george orwell #english literature #aqa english literature #english literature a level #english lit essay #essay #coursework

2 notes · View notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

To what extent does Charlotte Perkins Gilman present the yellow wallpaper as a symbol of madness in her short story ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’?

“The Yellow Wallpaper” [TYW] By Charlotte Perkins Gilman is described by Stephanie Forward as being a “compelling story of a depressed woman locked away as if she were worse than insane which was eventually to help improve the understanding and treatment of mental illness.” The story follows an unnamed female protagonist as she spirals further and further into insanity due to the Rest Cure. The Rest Cure was used as a treatment of so called hysteria in the United States during the 19th century. Gilman intended her short story to serve as a warning. She wrote "It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked." Throughout the short story the wallpaper changes with the protagonist’s decent into madness thus the wallpaper serves as a symbol for her madness. Symbols and symbolism play an important role in this text, and the wallpaper is certainly the most important and most obvious of them all. In my essay, I will be discussing the extent to which Charlotte Perkins Gilman presents the yellow wallpaper as a symbol of madness.

TWY is written in the form of a short story, this adds to the intensity of the piece. The narrator’s transition into madness is incredibly fast, occurring over only six thousand words, which focuses the attention on her state of mind. The reader is first introduced to the wallpaper early on in the story and, from the first time the narrator talks about the wallpaper, the language used gives the impression of insanity. Perkins Gilman uses phrases in describing the wallpaper’s pattern such as “they suddenly commit suicide” to foreshadow and become a symbol of the narrator’s eventual madness. In the Christian faith to commit suicide is a sin thus Perkins Gilman uses unholy language that makes the symbolic nature of the wallpaper far more sinister and helps cement the idea that the wallpaper is a symbol of the narrator’s madness. The narrator uses inhuman language when she describes the way the wallpaper’s pattern seems to move, “up and down and sideways they crawl”, giving the wallpaper animalistic qualities. The narrator mentions “a broken neck and two bulbous eyes” again giving the impression of strangulation and suicide. This focus on suicide in the pattern of the wallpaper shows that the wallpaper is a symbol for the narrators madness because we associate suicide with insanity or a least instability. Perkins Gilman also uses biblical language when the narrator notes that the wallpaper “sticketh closer than a brother” tying in with the idea of sin and unholiness that Perkins Gilman creates around the wallpaper. The use of biblical language also contributes to the idea that the wallpaper is a symbol for the mental demons that the narrator has, thus the use of such language in conjunction to the wallpaper further cements the idea that Perkins Gilman uses the wallpaper as a symbol of the narrator’s madness. The narrator is very isolated, due to the Rest Cure, contributing to her madness. Perkins Gilman uses the pattern in the wallpaper to highlight this, she states that “each breadth stands alone”. The narrator remarks“The outside pattern is a florid arabesque, reminding one of a fungus. If you can imagine a toadstool in joints, an interminable string of toadstools, budding and sprouting in endless convolutions.” using the language of decay to symbolise her mental state. The reader can see here, that the design of the wallpaper itself is used as a symbol for the narrator’s decent into madness.

Perkins Gilman uses the colour of the wallpaper to symbolise the narrator’s insanity. The colour yellow is associated with disease and sickness, as well as being the colour of the mind and mental state. Yellow is also associated with fluctuation and instability. Through the use of yellow as a wallpaper, Perkins Gilman creates a symbol of the narrator’s unstable mental state. The narrator remarks “the colour is repellant, almost revolting; a smouldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight.” “unclean” or dirty yellow is known to represent disease and sickness, as well as decay. Later in the story the narrator cements the idea that the colour is reminiscent of the unclean side of yellow, she says “It makes me think of all the yellow things I ever saw - - not beautiful ones like buttercups, but old foul, bad yellow things.” The narrator remarks later, about mushrooms, another symbol of decay. This links the colour of the wallpaper to the pattern inside, both a symbol for the decay in the mental state of the narrator.

Perkins Gilman’s use of smell in relation to the wallpapers also helps to solidify its place as a symbol of the narrator’s madness. The smell, like the pattern in the wallpaper, is also personified “It creeps all over the house.” giving it a supernatural quality, almost like a hallucination. The narrator says she “finds it hovering in the dining-room, skulking in the parlour, hiding in the hall, lying in wait for me on the stairs.” again giving the smell a hallucinatory factor and tying it into her madness. The narrator never describes what the smell actually is, she only says it is “a yellow

smell”, having already commented that the wallpaper is sulphuric in colour, Perkins Gilman could be implying that the wallpaper has a sulphuric smell. The smell and look of sulphur has long been associated with demons, demonic possession has long been associated with insanity; thus, the smell of the wallpaper itself could be a symbol for the narrator’s madness. The smell is also a symbol for the pervasive nature of her madness, how it “creeps all over the house” shows how it is working its way through her daily life, not just in the room.

Perkins Gilman’s use of light and dark, and clarity and obscurity in terms of the wallpaper is another way she symbolises the narrator’s madness. As the dim “figure” the narrator sees earlier on the short story becomes clearer and clearer, so she she slips further into insanity. Not only is the figure behind the bars a symbol for the way women are trapped by societal norms and expectations, she is also a symbol for the narrator’s madness, that is trying to get out and consume her. She states “the faint figure behind seemed to shake the pattern, just as if she wanted to get out”. The fact that the figure is “faint” shows that the narrator is not yet consumed by her insanity. By a third of the way through the story, the narrator is sure that “there are a great many women behind” shows that she is succumbing to the madness. By the end of the story, the narrator asked “did they all come out of the wallpaper as I did?” showing that the madness has taken over her, and she is now fully insane. The fact that John (a symbol for rationality) faints shows that he cannot cope with her total insanity. The figure behind the paper, symbolises the narrator’s madness, as it becomes more and more clear.

To conclude, Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses the wallpaper to symbolise the narrator’s madness. however, the story is set in 19th century America, a time when women had very few rights. Charlotte Perkins Gilman has been hailed as “an American feminist pioneer” therefore her short story TYW is a good example of feminist writing of the time. In a country where women did not get a vote until the 1920s, TYW highlights just how little choice a woman had over her own body; even her own mind. The ideal woman, as noted by Perkins Gilman herself was “to be a charmer before marriage and the cook afterward.”. The meaning behind the wallpaper could be interpreted as ambiguous, as it could represent women’s position in society at the time or the protagonist’s own insanity. However, in my opinion it makes more sense to conclude that the wallpaper is a symbol of madness.

1. Stephanie Forward - “The English Review” 1997.

2. The “Rest Cure” was pioneered by Silas Weir Mitchell, the rest cure could last for six to eight weeks. It involved isolation from relatives and friends, enforced bed rest and consuming milk and fatty foods. Patients were essentially treated as infants, with nurses to wash and dress them, to turn them over in bed and doctors to use electrotherapy to maintain muscle tone.

3. Charlotte Perkins Gilman “Why I wrote the Yellow Wallpaper” 1913 (published in “The Forerunner”)

4. Written in “Colour Symbolism in Literature: What Do Colours Mean in Literature and Poetry?”

5. Though there is no actual bible evidence for this, it has been passed down through word of mouth throughout the centuries.

#english literature #english literature a level #aqa english literature #the yellow wallpaper #english lit essay

22 notes · View notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

Theories of Resurrection of the body are logically coherent – Discuss. [35]

The idea of bodily resurrection remains a ‘grey’ area for many philosophers, this is why there’s such a variation between interpretations of post-mortem existence, or even doubt as to whether there is an existence after life, as we know it. The nature of this topic is complex since there’s no way to gain eschatological proof to verify or falsify any theories of post-mortem existence. There are four main types of life after death incorporating a disembodied existence or survival of the body: Bodily Resurrection, Dualism, Monism and Reincarnation.

A large part of Christianity is the belief that death is not the end, but merely the end to physical life and the beginning to a new stage of life. Christian’s believe that when we die there is a ‘particular judgement’, where God judges us on our actions throughout our life, upon this judgement humans will either be rewarded in Heaven or punished in Hell, depending on how moral they’ve been. The Bible mentions how following the death there will be a resurrection, but it doesn’t state whether this will be physical or spiritual. The most poignant account of resurrection is that of Jesus, where he arises from his death and entombment, although it’s noteworthy that it’s claimed he was ‘transformed’.

Whilst Christianity appears to be in favour of body and soul unity, it also mentions the separation upon awaiting judgement, this could be seen as vague and incoherent. Contrary to this, the proposal of Hell is often associated with physical suffering and pain, for instance fire. This idea suggests a bodily resurrection and a materialist approach to body and soul unification. The idea of Hell can also be seen as illogical in the foundations of Christianity; if God is meant to be omniscient and omni-benevolent, then why does he seemingly allow people to enter eternal damnation. Despite this, one could argue that the epistemic ‘gap’ between humans and God means we’re incapable as finite beings of understanding life after death.

Another approach to resurrection is that taken by John Hick; he wrote how bodily resurrection is ‘logical’ in his book ‘Death and Eternal Life’. Hick is a materialist who believes that the soul and body are ‘psycho-physically’ unified, and interprets Paul’s referencing of ‘spiritual resurrection’ to believe in a bodily resurrection after death. Hick explains this in his Replica Theory, where he talks about how God makes it possible for people to be ‘replicated’ on a parallel universe. Hick talks about how the instantaneous replication would be different from simply being transported from London to New York, he says all the individuals would know their dead and would be on a world populated by other deceased individuals.

Hick’s theory could be seen as incoherent because in science there’s no evidence to suggest there could be a parallel universe in which this replication could happen. Moreover, he doesn’t specify what happens to the body, for example does the body remain on earth, and are people replicated who’ve died from severe injury with mangled bodies. Hick justifies his theory in parable of Celestial City, where demonstrates how the truth can only be known eschatologically, and since it’s not falsifiable it can be seen as logical and coherent.

Dualists would disagree with the idea of bodily resurrection, both Christianity’s and Hick’s theories. Plato one of the earliest theorists behind dualism suggested that the mind and soul are separate, he wrote about how the body is finite, and believed that the soul is eternal and can be seen to be ‘imprisoned’ in the body. Plato believed that the soul recalled knowledge from the realm of the Forms, and our duty in life is to become ‘philosopher kings’ and separate our soul – this follows his idea of escaping from the cave. Similarly, philosophers such as H.H. Price have also identified how mental and bodily processes are different. Price mentions how the body is always in a time and place but the mind can wonder.

Other Dualists such as Descartes and Kant have also distinguished the body from the soul. Descartes famously said ‘I think therefore I am’, he demonstrates how we consider ourselves thinking beings distinct from the body. Kant also suggests that the soul is for thinking, but refers to this as ‘reason’. Kant suggests how we need to separate the soul from the bodily desires to make reasonable moral decisions, so the soul can reach Summon Bonum (the Supreme Happiness).

Following these beliefs, both Plato and Price deduced that the soul/mind will live on because the body is finite. This implies that theories that suggest bodily resurrection are incoherent, since it is the soul/mind, which are eternal, and that body is finite and therefore cannot exist after death. Whilst other dualists such as Descartes and Kant, believed that the ‘thinking’ or ‘reasoning’ function of the soul makes it superior from the body, and thus they also would believed that bodily resurrection is incoherent because it is the soul that is capable of a post-mortem existence.

Alternatively, Monists would believe that any belief in the afterlife is incoherent, disagreeing with Christianity, Hick and Dualists. Anthony Flew believed that there was no separation of the body and soul; he believed that the mind of humans is united with the body. Flew believed that mental processes are stored in the brain, and thus once the body is deemed clinically dead, nothing can survive. Flew says how people are what you meet, a combination of body and mind unification, and it’s ‘self-contradictory’ to refer to someone by name after death – it makes no sense. This is similar to what Aristotle wrote; he wrote how the soul gives the body ‘activity’, taking a biological approach to the unification. Theories of such unification believe it is incoherent to suggest in a life after death, and accept that life is until we die, or until the body is worn out. This is why Gilbert Ryle called the distinction of body and soul a ‘category mistake’; he illustrates this in his Ghost in the Machine analogy, where he claims the idea of a separate mind operating the apparatus of the body absurd.

Other Monists such as Bertrand Russell suggest that belief in the afterlife is derived from human ‘wishful thinking’. He described human fear of death as instinctive, and the cause of a human belief in life after death. For Russell the lack of evidence in the universe to suggest life after death, or even bodily resurrection makes it illogical and incoherent to speak of life after death. Conversely, Dawkins who could also be described as an evolutionist takes a materialist approach suggesting that reproduction is the cause of recollection. This argues against Plato’s ideas about the soul recalling the realm of the forms, as Dawkins suggests the Meme gene passes knowledge through the germ line. Similarly, the children who have the DNA of their parents could also be seen to be replications, which directly contradicts Hick’s idea of replica theory. Whilst Russell believes that human nature has led to the belief in afterlife, Dawkins tries to explain the reasons, which lead to people such as Plato and Hick coming up with their relative theories.

On the other hand, both Hinduism and Buddhism follow the idea of resurrection but feel that the resurrection is spiritual and not bodily. Hindu’s believe that the atman or soul is in ‘samsara’ – the cycle of life and death, being reborn in different bodies depending on the law of Karma i.e. how their life was lived. Hindu’s believed that Brahman is the true reality, and it’s the goal of life to reunite our atman with him: this is called Moksha. Similarly, Buddhism follows the idea of rebirth with the ‘doctrine of consciousness’; this theory teaches the idea of anatta, where there is no ‘self’ just consciousness, claiming we are constantly changing because personal qualities such as: emotions, responses and habits are not a permanent feature of self. Buddhists believe that is a person fails to separate the body and identify with the four noble truths that they will be reborn with a lower status until they lead moral lives and reach Enlightenment and Nirvana, which is the end of the cycle of rebirth.

Both these religious theories follow the idea of karma and suggest an almost dualist distinction of body and ‘soul’ (self/consciousness). Both would call the idea of bodily resurrection logically incoherent since they’re monotheistic and follow their religious doctrines, through meditation and ‘indoctrination’ of texts. However, arguably the lack of eschatological proof makes these religious theories just as incoherent since there is no proof to verify faith.

On balance, I think the four main theories on the afterlife: bodily resurrection, dualism, rebirth and monism, could all be deemed illogical and incoherent by an opposing theory, principally since the nature of this topic makes all theories unverifiable. However, at the same time Hick claims that his argument is coherent since it cannot be falsified, and covers all the ‘gaps’ in his argument by claiming that we’ll find out eschatologically, whilst Christianity claims an accessible personal relationship with God would be proof. Therefore, I think for Christians and supporters of Hick their theories may seem logical and coherent, but for other theories there may seem a lack of proof and thus deem bodily resurrection as illogical and incoherent; I this is because faith is unverifiable and ultimately no theory is more coherent than another.

I got 30/35 for this essay!! If you use it, please reblog.

#life after death #essay #philosophy essay #ocr philosophy #A2 philosophy #hume

1 note · View note

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

Critically asses the views of John Hick and Plato on the distinction between the body and the soul. [35]

Plato, a 5th century Greek philosopher believed that the body and soul were two separate entities. Making his theory a dualist theory, dualism is the thought that something is divided conceptually in to two separate, or apposed aspects. In this case, the body and the soul. John Hick, a 20th century English philosopher’s, ideas contrasted with Plato on the distinction between the body and the soul, instead Hick used monist ideas. Monism is a theory that denies the existence of duality in the case of mind and matter and body and soul.

Plato theorised that the body and soul were separate, that the soul is perfect and is imprisoned in the body. Plato believed that the body learned through the senses; and that it relied on the physical world. Plato thought the body to be weak because of its desires. He stated that the soul came from the world of forms; this is how we know things exist like a perfect circle. Plato believed that because the soul came from the world of forms we have objective knowledge, this argument is dubious because it relies entirely on the existence of the world of forms. Critically speaking here, we can call Plato’s arguments into doubt because of the argument’s reliance on something we have no empirical evidence for. Geach also questions Plato’s theory stating that we do not know how a disembodied soul can ‘see’ the forms to gain our objective knowledge, although, if we do not know the world of forms in our physical bodies we cannot call it in to question (providing it exists).

Plato also thought that the soul was split into three parts, he illustrated this in his theory of the charioteer. In this theory Plato said to envisage the soul like a charioteer driving a chariot drawn by two horses, one black one and white horse. The black horse represents desire, and appetite, this makes us feed and look after our bodies; however, this could lead to hedonism and pleasure seeking. The white horse represents emotion, such as love and courage, however, this can lead to recklessness. The charioteer was thought to represent reason, it controls and drives the horses, keeping them in check; making sure neither one gets out of hand. Plato states that we can only function correctly when all parts of our soul are balanced, this is problematic because Dawkins, using scientific theory, criticises the existence of the soul, and states that we are one unified whole; also that “science killed the soul” however, assuming that the world of forms exists Plato’s theory is credible.

John Hick used monism to create his replica theory, trying to prove the possibility of Christian resurrection. His argument is centred around the fact that an exact clone of a person is the real person. His goal was to show that the existence of life after death was possible, because an omnipotent God could create exact replicas of people in the afterlife. He believed that the soul and the body were one, unified whole, this makes the theory effective because it is consistent with modern science’s view that the soul, or mind, is one with the body. However, an omnipotent God should not be able to make a replica because it is logically impossible to replicate people’s brain mechanics, this could undermine Hick’s theory although if the omnipotent God exists then it would not be impossible for God to do, just illogical.

John Hick’s replica theory used the example of John Smith, in the theory he claimed that when a person dies a replica appeared in another place, though this is undermined by the fact that there is no evidence to suggest where or how exactly this happens. The replica is not just a copy, it is you, or it is the person who died, although this is questionable because part of being human is being an individual and not being able to be replicated. Hick used his thought experiment and John Smith to help illustrate his theory. Consider, John Smith disappears in London and a replica appears in New York, the person in New York is exactly the same as the John Smith from London; they believe themselves to be John Smith. Hick asks if it would be reasonable to believe that the person in New York is John Smith? Hick moved on from that, saying that, now John Smith dies in London and a replica appears in New York. Is the replica the same as the dead body in London? Though Hick acknowledges that this would be very odd, he does state that it would be reasonable to believe the replica to be John Smith. Hick concludes his thought experiment with the idea that John Smith dies in London and reappears in a different world. The John Smith in the different world is the same as the John Smith in London, he thinks the same and has the same memories, surely it is logical then to believe that the replica is the same John Smith. Vardy, however, argues against multiple replicas. A constructive problem with the theory is that an exact replica of a person is not necessarily the real person, part of personal identity is the continuation of that person throughout space and time. If we accept Hick, if we create one hundred replicas of someone they are all that person. Thus Hick’s view of personal identity is problematic, however, his theory of the distinction between the body and soul as a united whole is far more credible because it is supported by science with strong empirical evidence.

In conclusion, Plato using dualism believed that the soul and body were separate, the soul originating the world of forms is split into three parts (illustrated by the charioteer) the soul gives us objective knowledge while the body relies on the physical world. The soul is imprisoned in the body. Hick, theorised that the soul and the body are a unified whole, this is far more rooted in empirical evidence than Plato’s theory making it far more plausible.

I can’t remember what I got for this one, I think it was something like 29??

#essay #philosophy essay #A2 OCR philosophy #ocr philosophy #Plato #hick

2 notes · View notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

‘Symbolic language is the best way to talk about God’ Discuss. [35]

(Another 35/35 essay)

Paul Tillich, a German philosopher, theorised in the the 20th century that symbolic language was the best way to talk about God. Tillich used symbol instead of Aquinas’s analogy to talk about God. A symbol is something that represents something else, usually something material representing something abstract. A quotation from Lia Habel comes to mind “Symbols are stories. Symbols are pictures, or items, or ideas that represent something else.” this shows the wider effect that symbols can have, made even more powerful when tied to something as powerful as religion; even more so when talking about God. Tillich believed that religious language is a symbolic was of pointing to an ultimate reality, a vision of God he called “being-itself”; and thus he thought symbolic language the best the way to talk about God.

Symbolic language was thought to be the best way to talk about God, by Paul Tillich in the 20th century. Tillich theorised that religious language, used to talk about God, was symbolic and non literal. Tillich thought symbols did four things in particular; they point to something beyond, they participate in what they point to, they open up dimensions of our souls, and they open up levels of reality that were previously closed to us. Tillich labelled this his ‘Theory of participation’ however, the theory was criticised by Hick, stating that the meaning of ‘participation’ is unclear. This undermines symbol as the best way to talk about God, because the theory itself is vague.

William Alston argued against Tillich, he criticised Tillich for removing religious language of its substantive content. Tillich agued that statements sun as “God loves all his creatures” are to be understood in a symbolic way. Alston questioned this, by saying that if we take Tillich’s method to be the best way to talk about God, then the statement no longer has any real meaning to do with the traditional view point. This suggests that symbol is not the best way to talk about God.

However, symbol is still an effective way to talk about God because, symbols are relevant to every people of any time. People from every age of humanity can relate to symbols as a way of expressing thoughts and feelings and loyalties. A flag for example, flags inspire great emotions in people, whether it be at a time of war or at something as trivial as a world cup. When applied to religion, symbols such as the cross inspire great emotion in those who value it. Symbols are still a successful way of talking about God.

Although, another fault One can argue about the theory is that the symbols themselves could easily become that soul focus of religion, thus taking away from the traditional focus. This could lead to rituals taking over from the divine, for example communion. A symbol, for example the icons of the greek orthodox church, could become over used and thus loose meaning. Therefore, using symbolic language is a problematic way to talk about God.

The theory is supported by J. Randall, an American philosopher, Randall also believed religious language used to talk about God to be symbolic and non literal. Randall argued that symbols do four things in particular; they arouse emotion, they make people act, they stimulate and inspire community action, they allow people to express emotion non literally, and they clarify our relation ship with God. Thus making the statement that symbol is the best way to talk about God, powerful.

In contrast, it would be difficult to understand every religion on the planet as being symbolic. Surely the literal reading of the stories and commandments should be maintained, this would preserve the tradition that has been going on in every religion around the world. This tradition is arguably responsible for the creation of some of the world’s greatest achievements. The ten commandments, for example, these underpin most of the United Kingdom’s legal system; these commandments are probably not meant to be taken symbolically. “Do not kill” was most likely supposed to be taken literally. Thus because symbol is not applicable to every way of talking about God, it is a weak theory.

Analogy is another way to talk about God, the theory was argued by Aquinas, to be the best way talk about God, other than symbol. Aquinas thought of two types of analogy. The analogy of attribution states that our goodness comes from directly from God, for example, a baker is good therefore the bread is good; thus we are only good because God is good. We can only speak of God’s goodness because of our own. However, do we loose meaning behind what are trying to communicate, it could be argued that religious language becomes meaningless instead of meaningful if we use analogy to talk about God. Whereas with symbol it is arguable that there is more meaning behind religious language. Aquinas’s analogy of proportion states that everything has the same qualities just in proportion to each other. For example, God has life, we have life and the plants have life. We all have life they are just in proportion, we can talk about God’s life in proportion to our own. This theory is, however, dubious because it could be said that God has an infinite life; we do not, therefore we cannot talk about God’s existence because we are not in proportion to him. These weaknesses show that symbol is the best way to talk about God.

In conclusion, whilst symbol is perhaps strong than analogy for talking about God, it is certainly not the best way. There are many weakness in symbolic language, it can not be applied to all ways of talking about God, if everything was to be made in to a symbol we could loose meaning, and Alston argues that it is too far from tradition to be meaningful. Therefore, it would be likely for another theory to be stronger than symbol for talking about God, thus One must reject the above statement.

#essay #A2 philosophy #philosophy and ethics #philosophy essay #symbol #A2 OCR philosophy

1 note · View note

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

‘Myths are more useful than symbols for talking about God’ Discuss [35]

(here is one of my essays I got 35/35 for it)

Myths are constructs of the societies that they originate in, they are stories used to convey truths about those societies. Myths according to Maquarrie are ways of expressing truths about God through the use of storytelling, a fictional story expressing objective truths. The stories themselves are not necessarily true but the emotions and facts they express are; this could make myths more useful than Tillich’s symbols for talking about God, as symbol is more open to interpretation. Bultman also argues in favour of myth, stating that the bible should be ‘demythologised’ to make it more appropriate to modern audiences. J Randall, however, agreed with Tillich stating that RL is symbolic and non-cognitive, that RL does not express propositions and cannot be true or false, implying that Maquarrie’s ‘objective truths’ cannot be true or false at all; raising the question that could symbol be more useful than myth for talking about God?

It could be argued here that Maquarrie’s theory of mythology is flawed, he states that a myth is a fictional story expressing objective truths, but what is an objective truth? Who decides which myths are true and which myths are false? it is arguable that each of our interpretations of each different myth more subjective than objective, therefore undermining the entire theory, an objective truth is a statement that is true of all people and all times, surely an interpretation of a story would change with each different person who reads it? Interpretations of the Bible itself have changed with the times, modern christians no longer believe in Purgatory, for example. Indeed, two separate religions have two completely different interpretations of the same book. Surely this would mean that symbol is more useful than myth for talking about God.

Rudolf Bultmann argued that the Bible should be interpreted mythologically, also that it should also be ‘demythologised’ in order to keep its relevance in a society less used to dealing with myth. This is important, relevance implies use, thus it could be argued that myth (due to it's modern day relevance) is more useful that symbol for talking about God. However, the meaning of the myth could be lost in time, meaning that we are no longer able to interpret the myth in the way it was intended to be interpreted; this could potentially discredit Bultmann’s argument for demythologising the Bible. If we lose meaning then that decreases the usefulness of myth when talking about God, although One could argue that it doesn’t matter if we loose the original meaning so long as there is still meaning to the myth.

Richard Dawkins argues that myths about Hell and other such things can be damaging to children, inspiring fear could be psychologically harmful, this is because children are less able to understand that such things are fictitious. Making symbols far more useful for talking about God, as they do not tend to be easier to understand and interpret than myth.

Paul Tillich argued that symbol is useful for talking about God because religious language was symbolic and not literal. In his theory of participation he suggested that symbols do four things in particular. They point to something beyond, though it is not clear what he means here. They participate in what they point to. They open up levels of reality that were previously closed to us. They open up dimensions of the soul. Tillich argues that symbols help describe things that cannot be described in words alone, for example God’s love for us can not be put in to words without loosing some or all of its deeper meaning; therefore, we can use the symbol of God sending his only son to Earth and letting him die for our sins on the cross. The symbol of Jesus dying on the cross adequately expresses God’s love for us without loosing meaning. Therefore it could be argued that symbol is far more useful than myth for talking about God as there is no meaning lost with symbol.

Furthermore symbols are relevant for every country and every time, though the symbol themselves might change and the use of them may differ, every country and people have had symbols, myths loose relevance making symbol more useful for talking about God. A flag, for example, inspires deep feelings and never looses relevance. The fact that there are different interpretations of symbols could be seen as a strength because each interpretation inspires deep emotion in people, therefore making symbols more useful than myth when talking about God.

J Randall, in support of Tillich, stated that religious language is best interpreted symbolically not literally. He argues that symbols do four things; they arouse strong emotion, inspire people to act, stimulate and inspire community action, allow someone to express experiences non-literally, and clarify our relationship with God. This makes symbol more useful than myth for talking about God because symbols are not limited to words alone; therefore it is easier to explain something that can not be explained literally with symbol than it is with myth.

Speaking critically of symbol however, Hick suggested that Tillich’s theory of participation was unclear; that Tillich had not defined what participation meant thus it could be argued that the theory is undermined by poor explanation; therefore myth may be more useful than symbol in talking about God.

To conclude, I believe that symbol is more useful when talking about God than myth because, symbols are more relevant to modern day culture as we are more familiar with them; therefore it is easier to talk about God in terms of symbol than myth. Symbols also inspire more emotion when talking about God; making them more useful than myth. It is easier to decipher meaning from a symbol than it is a myth, myths are more likely to be wrongly taken as truths than symbols. Myths also loose meaning over time as they become more and more irrelevant to society. It is also unclear whether or not Myths express objective truths, making symbol more straightforward to understand.

#essay #A2 philosophy #myth #symbol #A2 OCR philosophy

0 notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

Religious Language

Propositions - sentences that can be true or false.

Cognitivist = RL expresses propositions. — Meaning that it is saying something can be true or false.

Non-cognitivists = RL does not express propositions. — Can’t be true or false.

Verificationism

Analytic — True by definition.

Synthetic — Not true by definition.

Ayer’s (non-cognitivist) verificationism centres around the verification principle which states that in order to be meaningful something must be empirically verifiable. Ayer also thinks analytic propositions can be meaningful. He says that RL cannot be verified therefore it is meaningless. For example, if One says that the mountain is 1000 ft above sea level. If it is then what One had said is meaningful and true. If its not then it is meaningful and false. But if One were to say that the mountain is 1000 ft above sea level in a universe where there are no mountains then it would be meaningless.

One of the criticism is that it is overly restrictive, it would get rid of history and art and literature. Saying that these things are all meaningless.

Ayer invents weak and strong verification, weak verification involves probabilistic evidence to suggest something is probable EG: History. But he still thinks there is no way to do that when it comes to RL.

The verification principle cannot verify itself. Lol. Thus it is inherently useless.

Falsificationism

Falsification is a test, about whether or not something is empirical, if something is empirical then it depends on evidence. If something depends on evidence then it will be proven right by certain evidence and disproven by other evidence, therefore, if something is empirical it should be able to say what evidence, were we to discover it, would disprove it.

Can religion do this? Flew says no, it cannot. (Parable of the gardener —> John Wisdom.) “Death by a thousand qualifications.” the ultimate conclusion is if there is no empirical sign of God in reality then what is the difference between a reality with God in it and a reality in which God does not exist.

Swinburne says “Imagine the toys in your cupboard come alive” we understand what it means to be alive, falsification has no meaning.

What is alive though?

Hare

Hare is non-cognitivist so he doesn't regard RL as expressing propositions, however, he thinks they are meaningful nonetheless, this is due to his theory of meaning where the meaning of language is an expression of someone’s attitude to the world. Hare called this attitude a blik. So when someone says ‘God be with you’ they are not making a claim about reality rather they are expressing some attitude they have - the blik. Hare therefore, criticises verificationism by showing how language can be meaningful without expressing propositions.

This means that religious people can’t describe reality when talking about God. They may feel like he’s failing to capture their meaning. So he’s wrong.

Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein’s (W) early work concerned the picture theory of meaning which said language gets its meaning by picturing reality. This picturing can be either true or false. This theory of meaning was liked by the Vienna circle and is similar to verificationism.

Wittgenstein’s (W) theory of meaning is that the meaning of language depends on how is is used, which in turn depends on the social context in which the person is speaking. W called this social context a language game which is created whenever a group communicates. Each group of people will communicate in different ways and with different rules, depending completely on the particular social nature of that group. The rules of each language game only apply to language spoken within that language game. So the RL only has meaning within the RL game this is why Ayer regarded it as meaningless since he was trying to understand RL from the context of the scientific language game.

This means that RL cannot do what the scientific language game does, namely describe reality, therefore W fails to capture the intended meaning of RL.

He’s stupid.

So what about a religious scientist who thinks God’s existence can be proven with science, they are fusing the language games in a way W seems to think should be impossible and yet apparently it isn’t (cause he’s stupid).

Are they real scientists? If not, they aren’t playing the language game.

Symbol

Paul Tillich (bae) states that RL is symbolic and not literal, he also says that symbols are something we can all participate in, for example, a flag. His theory suggested that symbols do four things in particular, they point to something beyond, they participate in what they point to, they open up levels of reality that were previously closed to us, and they open up dimensions of the soul. This was named the ‘Theory of Participation’. He argued that the symbols helped describe things that cannot simply be described in words. God also is a symbol, namely of the deepest most significant aspects of ourselves. Use the symbol of the cross, for example.

J Randall agreed with Tillich saying that RL is symbolic and non-cognitive, he argues that RL does four things; arouses emotion and makes people act, stimulates and inspires community action, allows someone to express experiences non-literally, and clarifies our relationship with God.

Hick says that this ‘Theory of Participation’ is unclear, what does participate actually mean? How does it work? What is ‘opening up dimensions of the soul’?

Symbols are meaningless cause we don’t know whether they are true or not.

They cannot be verified or falsified.

Analogy

Aquinas argued that analogy was the only way to use RL in a meaningful way, criticising univocal and equivocal language. He criticised univocal language, because if we say that ‘God loves’ and ‘humans love’ then they mean the same thing which cannot be the case. There is a similar problem with equivocal language because if we say that those two sentences mean completely different things then that doesn’t seem right either. He came up with two types of analogy, the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proportion.

The analogy of attribution states that our goodness comes directly from God, for example the baker and the bread: the bread is only good because the baker is good, thus we are only good because God is good. Thus we can speak meaningfully of God’s goodness because of our own.

The analogy of proportion states that everything has the same qualities only they are in proportion to what we are, for example: we have life but not in the same way God has life. A virus has life, bacteria have life and so on, these things have more or less life; we can talk about God’s life with a proportional analogy to our own.

But do we loose meaning behind what we are trying to communicate? Perhaps RL becomes meaningless instead of meaningful?

We are not proportionate to God, he has an infinite existence we have a finite one.

St. Paul argues that we cannot accurately describe God until we ‘see’ him.

Myth

Maquarrie argues that myth is the best way to talk about God, stating that RL is rooted in mythology and that myths are ways of expressing things through the use of storytelling. A fictional story conveying an objective truth. There are different types of myth, creation myths, good versus evil myths, birth myths.

Bultman also argues in favour of myth stating that the bible should be ‘demythologised’ in order to make its meaning apparent to its modern audience who are not in the habit of speaking mythologically. He believed the correct interpretation of the meaning of the bible was mythology. For example, when Jesus healed the sick, this was not a historical account of factual events instead it is trying to convey the meaning that Jesus cared about our suffering.

But, are these objective truths? Who decides which myths are true and which myths are false? How can we decide? On what basis? Isn't our interpretation of the myth just subjective? How do we know we have the right one?

Myths are just constructs of societies; not objective truths.

Just because the stories aren’t true doesn't mean that what they are trying to convey is false, they are just stories used to rationalise God in human terms.

Via Negative

This was originally used to attack Aquinas and his analogy, it was put forward by the Pseudo-Dionysus and states that our words limit God, God is beyond language. Pseudo-Dionysus argued that instead of saying what God is, we should be saying what God isn’t, this is the only viable alternative, since we cannot describe God by saying what he is we say what he isn’t. Positive terms are rooted in our language and are therefore, misleading when it comes to something so ‘other’ as God. No matter how rational we are, we cannot rationalise God.

Moses Maimonides gave the example of the ship, by decrying what a ship is not we get closer to what a ship is.

But! How can we describe what God isn’t when we don’t know what he is in the first place?

Flew states that negatives amount to nothing and therefore we learn nothing about God when we use this theory.

The Via Negative contradicts religious teachings on what God is.

But! It avoids anthropomorphising God!! It applies to every culture and every time. It does not limit God. It acknowledges that God is beyond our language.

#A2 philosophy #A2 revision #A2 OCR philosophy #revision notes #religious language notes #philosophy a level #philosophy and ethics #religious language

6 notes · View notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

Religious Experience.

William James

William James wrote the book “Varieties of Religious Experience.” In this he stated that something is real if it has real effects, for example if someone had a religious experience and then dedicated their life to charity then the experience must have real. He defined RE as having four properties: passivity - One is not in control of the experience, Ineffability - the experience cannot be described, Noetic - the experience leads to greater understanding, Transient - the experience is short lived.

Vardy rejects him, calling him an anti-realist.

Nicholas Lash says that experiences are directly personal and that it is about experiencing God through pattern setters.

Swinburne

Swinburne states that RE helps prove the existence of God. He stated that we categorise RE into two categories, Public and Private experiences. Public Experiences are ordinary events that can be interpreted in extraordinary ways, such as a sunset being interpreted as a symbol of God. Private experiences are described as ineffable. He also stated two ways for showing that we can believe people when they talk about miracles. The principle of credulity, states that if someone seems present and to be making correct decisions then we should believe them. The principle of testimony states that it makes sense to believe that people are telling the truth.

The two principles for believing in miracles can be seen as naive.

Anthony Flew said that “ten leaky buckets” do not make up a sound argument.

Otto

Otto believed in the numinous, the experience of something completely ‘other’. The numinous cannot really be described as an experience with the christian definition of God. His ideas were not wholly christian, instead he was aware of the importance of RE to other religions world wide, and the idea of the numinous reflects this, in not being tied to one specific religion.

This is all provided that the numinous actually exists, there is no empirical evidence for it

Dawkins

Conflicting claims challenge (see Hume in miracles) + hallucination + freud.

Freud

Freud called religion an “obsessional neurosis”. He thought religion could be explained using psychology. Freud therefore does not rely on philosophical argument but attempts to explain RE scientifically. Freud argued that religion exists simply to enable the human mind to overcome its fear of death by deluding itself that death is illusory. Freud also thought the fact that religious people refer to God as “father” is clearly an attempt to be a child forever for the comfort that brings.

A lot of psychologists criticised Freud for not being empirical. There is not enough evidence to justify belief.

William James criticises psychological arguments against RE as originating in some sort of prejudice against religion.

Marx

Marx, made a sociological critique of religion. He argued that religion as a social phenomenon exists, like all other social forces, to perpetuate the interests of those in power. Eg, divine right of kings, the bible was in latin, indulgences. The peasantry throughout history were systematically exploited by the ruling class. Marx believed, as part of his communist ideology, that the natural progression of history was for the workers to rise up and take power from the ruling class. However, religion stood in the way of this progression by not only telling the peasants that their lowliness was divinely mandated but also that they should be accepting of their lives of drudgery because they would receive an infinite reward in heaven. RE is part of the lie and delusion.

Its a dated view of it, and there is still RE going on today.

Religion was about power but that is because religion was all there was, it touched every corner of life.

Corporate Religious Experience

CRE is when multiple people share the same RE, e.g., Toronto Blessing, laughing, crying, speaking in tongues.

Herd syndrome. Aliens. Witches (Salem).

Science (NDEs OBEs Drugs etc)

Scientists often claim there is a naturalistic explanation for supposedly supernatural events like REs potential explanations could involve mental illness hallucinations (not to do with mental illness), strange but understandable brain events like sleep paralysis hypnagogic hallucinations. Drugs and alcohol and fasting also can make us hallucinate.

NDEs would be explained by hallucinations resulting from the chaos of a dying mind.

Examples of mental illness, St Paul, Mohammed, Moses — epilepsy.

but faith

#A2 philosophy #OCR #A2 OCR philosophy #A2 revision #philosophy and ethics

8 notes · View notes

hume-or · 9 years ago

Text

Miracles.

A summary of philosophers. Bullets are evaluation.

Swinburne

There are three types of historical evidence that supports the existence of miracles: memories, the story of others, physical traces.

The memories may not be accurate, they may have been influenced by memory altering drugs for example.

The physical traces of miracles may have been tampered with.

The theory relies too much on the assumption that someone is tell the truth.

Dawkins

Dawkins is a firm advocate against miracles. He believes there is no empirical evidence that miracles exist. He thinks that miracles are a way of dealing with the unexpected.

There is evidence, the bible is evidence.

The Bible

The bible obviously believes in miracles, and is used as evidence for the existence of miracles by christians.

The bible is just a book, if we use this argument then we may as well say Harry Potter exists because those too are books.

Hume - Evidence Argument

The evidence of our past life builds a understanding of the world from which we derive laws of nature. A miracle would be a contradiction of these laws however, a miracle would therefore have to be weighed against the evidence of our past life. Hume thinks it is always more likely that we are under some sort of misapprehension rather than our past life’s experience being truly invalidated.

This seems to close off the possibility of learning new things because what we’ve experienced in our lives is just a small part of the known universe.

Miracles require faith, not evidence.

A miracle might not be defined as a contradiction, it might be defined as something different.

Hume - Ignorant

Hume argued that the miracles are not reported on by educated people of good sense. Instead Hume noticed miracle reports tended to come from “ignorant and barbarous nations”. In places of lower education beliefs in myths are more common place and more steadfastly held to.

Arrogant, what is educated? - Swinburne

Attacking someone’s personality rather than their argument - Ad Hominmen.

Could easily be the case that Hume is arrogant and yet correct in his argument.

Hume - Conflicting Claims

Hume points out that there are many religions each of which have miracle stories but at most one religion can be true and so most if not all are wrong. This means that a gap of doubt is opened in any miracle claim. Even if one religion were true the believers in that religion cant know they are in the true religion and so even they lack sufficient justification to believe their religion’s miracle stories.

This argument is limited in it’s scope as it doesn't rule out miracles existing only our ability to ever know that they exist.

Hick argues that religions can all be true, because they are simply culturally different expressions of the ubiquitous human instinct for the divine.

Hume - Psychology

People want to believe in miracles, humans have a predisposition to believe in profound significant meaningful things. Belief in miracles could arguably give people’s lives meaning.

William James — argues that people who make psychological arguments are simply trying to justify their prejudices by making up negative psychological traits about the opponents.

This could be true of some people but is it really the case of all people who make psychological arguments. Sweeping statements.

Also implies that there is little truth to psychology.

Hick

Miracles cant exist, because if something violated a law of nature then in fact that would change the law itself. The miracles in the old testament were miracles but not violations of the law of nature.

Not really criticising Hume. Since the law of nature Hume sleeks of is the law as understood by humans based on their life experience whereas Hick is talking about the actual objective laws of nature. Arguably they are talking across purposes.

Wiles

Maurice Wiles rejects the idea of miracles, even though he is a christian philosopher, because he disputed the idea of an interventionist God. In response to creation he called it “one single act of God” instead of saying that it was a miracle. He believed this because he thought it would be contradictory for God to only interfere in certain circumstances, and not when we were in dire need of help (the holocaust for example).

Wiles is, however, inconsistent with the Bible.

Vardy says we cannot judge God.

#A2 philosophy #OCR #studyblr #notes #revision notes #A2 revision #philosophy a level #enjoy #philosophy and ethics

14 notes · View notes